Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1968/06/24 MINUTES OF A REGULAR ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA June 24, 1968 The regular adjourned meeting of the City Planning Commission was held on the above date in the Council Chamber, Civic Center, 276 Guava Avenue at 7 p.m., with the following members present: Guyer, Gregson, Rice and Adams. Absent: (with previous notification) Chairman Stewart, Hyde and York. Also present: Associate Planner Manganelli, Planning Draftsman Liuag, City Attorney Lindberg, and Assistant City Engineer Gesley. City Attorney Lindber§ explained to those present that action on any item on the agenda tonight will require four affirmative votes. Since there are only four members present, all actions would require unanimous vote of the Commission. Any applicant who prefers to have a full Commission consider their request, should make their wishes known at this time and their case will be continued. It was noted that no one asked to have their requests continued. PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit - 1225 Frontage Road - Request for a mobile home park in an R-3 zone - George W. Trusty The application was read in which permission was requested to construct a mobile home park on property at 1225 Frontage Road. Associate Planner Man9anelli submitted a plot plan noting the location and adjacent land use. He noted that the widening of the freeway and the subsequent reloca- tion of the frontage road will displace the applicant's abutting westerly property on which is located a mobile home park. He is requesting permission to relocate this park on the subject property. The applicant proposes 19 spaces with a central driveway 28' wide bisecting the property and ending in a small cul-de-sac. He proposes to have three extra spaces on a portion of the property facing Ada Street, and a few spaces of the existing trailer park will remain. The density will be 2200 square feet per unit. Mr. Manganelli reminded the Commission of the recently adopted amendment to the zoning ordinance placing this use under the Unclassified Use Section subject to certain guidelines, one of which is that the density be 4000 square feet. This proposed park doesn't meet all of these conditions outlined in this amendment. This is not a new trailer park as such, but a replacement of his existing park. Therefore, the staff does not make any recommendation on this matter but rather would ask the Commission for guidelines as to how many, if any, of these conditions we should impose on the applicant. Mr. Manganelli added that he discussed with the applicant the possibility of a travel trailer park. City Attorney Lindberg spoke of the conditions indicating that there has not been a definite recommendation of the standards themselves; this is just going to the City Council. However, the Commission can impose any conditions on the conditional use permit. If the applicant desires to request a conditional use permit for a transient type of operation, then it would be necessary to modify the application and readvertise. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. -2- Mr. George Trusty, the applicant, spoke of his plans for the proposed trailer park remarking that the new park will be for the people presently occupying spaces in the existing park. Member Adams asked if he would have more spaces in this new park than he had in the old one. Mr. Trusty stated he would have two less spaces. The parking situation will be better than the old park since they will be providing two spaces in tandem nearest the trailers with some guest parking spaces. Mr. Manganelli asked that the parking layout be left to the staff since the applicant is providing tandem parking which is not allowed by ordinance. This can be worked out satisfactorily, however. Mr. Lindberg declared that it should be recognized that the State has very extensive legislation concerning mobile home parks that must be enforced by the Building Inspection Department. Member Adams felt the Commission should not require any stringent regulations on this applicant in view of the fact that he had his business interrupted by the highway. The Commission concurred that the matter should be continued to the meeting of July 1 in order to have the applicant meet with the staff and correct some of these problems. MSUC (Rice-Gregson) Public hearing be continued to the meeting of July l, 1968. PUBLIC HEARING: Variance - lO14 Corte Maria - Request for reduction in rear sard setback from 20' to 15' - W. R. CoreS The application was read in which a request was made for a reduction in rear yard from 20' to 15' for the purpose of constructing a single family dwelling, the lanai of which would extend into the required yard. Associate Planner Manganelli submitted a plot plan and a sketch of the proposed dwelling discussing the location and request. All of the existing homes on the west side of Corte Maria rear upon the San Diego Country Club Golf Course. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. W. R. Corey, the applicant, stated he was present to answer questions and asked for approval of his request. The secretary stated that there was a letter on file from Mr. Robert Osborn, 1020 Corte Maria, objecting to the request. Also a peti%ion signed by five property owners protesting to the request. -3- Mr. Charles Provence, attorney, 825 Bank of America Building, San Diego Building, San Diego, stated he is representing Mr. Osborn in this matter. He claimed that the applicant does not have any legal ground to justify this variance; it would be a detriment to the other properties in this vicinity, especially those bordering the golf course; the variance will be to confer a special privilege inconsistent with the other properties in this vicinity. Mr. Provence discussed the petition and added that in order to grant this variance, the Commission must have strict enforcement of the zoning ordinance. Because these properties face on the golf course, they have a special attribute. More people pass by the rear of these lots than the front of these lots. Mr. Corey is the developer of this particular subdivision and he should be the last one to seek such a variance. It will establish a precedent resulting in a hodge-podge development. Mr. Provence added that it would be the most notorious variance for a rear setback in the City. It will decrease the valuation of the properties in the area. The Commission discussed the fact that the applicant can build a patio with two sides enclosed without applying for a variance. There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. Member Adams commented that, as the Attorney pointed out, there are no exceptional circumstances, all the other properties adhere to the setback. He would be in favor of denying the request. Member Gregson disagreed noting that the applicant is far below the required lot coverage (the ordinance allows 40% coverage--the applicant is proposing 31%) and he can see nothing wrong with the request. Member Rice remarked that the lot size was well above the minimum 7,000 square feet and he could see no reason to make a special case out of this one, that the applicant had room to revise his plans and keep within the setback area. MSC (Adams-Rice) Variance be denied based on the reason that no exceptional circumstances exist that would justify granting the request, and that all of the other properties in the block adhere to the setback requirement. The motion carried by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: Members Adams, Rice, and Guyer NOES: Member Gregson ABSENT: Members Stewart, Hyde, York City Attorney Lindberg stated the variance has been denied and reminded the applicant of his right to appeal this decision to the City Council within 10 days. -4- PUBLIC HEARING: Variance - 317 K Street - Request for outside display (C-2 use) in a C-1 zone - Richard and Christine Nielson The application was read in which a request was made for permission to display equipment outdoors at the property located at 317 K Street. Associate Planner Manganelli submitted a plot plan noting the location of the property, the adjacent land use and zoning. He stated that the applicant is proposing to pave the easterly area of the site for parking and will be dis- playing goods, such as lawnmowers and tandem bicycles, in front of the building. The display area will be behind the existing chain link fence. Because of the former use, a plant nursery, which displayed merchandise outside the building, a precedent has been established and the applicant is entitled to do this because his use is similar in scope. The reason they applied for the variance is to request the Planning Commission to recognize this and approve it with the idea in mind that any abatement provisions in the future would be avoided because the use is approved by the Commission. The staff, however, recommends that this application be filed for the following reasons: it will be several years before any abatement procedures are contemplated and when the abatement procedure is enacted, the applicant will have an additional several years to correct the situation. City Attorney Lindberg stated this is true and that the use can continue since the former business has not been closed down for a period of time that would abandon the use. He added that the applicant is entitled to pursue his rights to the City Council, and he cannot do this unless the Planning Commission denies the variance, thus giving him the right to appeal. The factory representative of this merchandise spoke for the applicant and showed the Commission some pictures of the equipment that will be displayed. He noted that it was not large equipment. The applicant has a 10 year franchise with his company. Mr. Lindberg stated that in the consideration of granting this variance, the Commission must find exceptional circumstances and hardship; this has to be acknowledged in terms of the surrounding uses. There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. The Commission discussed the use commenting they had little objection to it. Associate Planner Manganelli remarked that any abatement procedure would not abate the use, merely the outdoor storage unless the zoning is changed. At such time, the applicant will be well recognized in this business so that the public will continue their patronage. MSUC (Rice-Gregson) Denial of the request based on the following reasons: 1. No exceptional circumstances could be found that would justify the granting of this variance. 2. The General Plan designates this area for medium density residential but the current trend is to high density residential. -5- 3. The applicant is allowed to display this merchandise outside the building at this time because of the precedent set by the previous use which stored and displayed merchandise outside. 4. It will be several years before abatement proceedings will be initiated after the adoption of the new proposed zoning ordinance, and such proceed- ings will result in the allowance of an amortization period of several additional years before final abatement is accomplished. PUBLIC HEARING: Variance - 94 Bonita Road - Request for reduction of rear yard setback from 20' to 12' - Felipe N. Pulido The application was read in which a request was made for a reduction of rear yard setback from 20' to 12' for the purpose of constructing an addition to the dwelling. Associate Planner Manganelli submitted a plot plan noting the location of the dwelling and the proposed addition. He pointed out that this is a corner lot and 75% of the lot area is taken up in setbacks (20' on First Avenue and 15' on Bonita Road). One of the yards if 9-t/2' deep and the other is 24' deep thereby classifying the latter as the rear yard and the only area in which the addition is possible. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Felipe Pulido, the applicant, stated he was present and had nothing to add to the Associate Planner's explanation. There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. The Commission discussed the layout of the dwelling and the proposed addition and concurred that the shallow lot is the exceptional circumstance in this case. MSUC (Gregson-Rice) Approval of variance request. Findings be as follows: (a) That the strict application of the zoning regulations or requirements would result in particular difficulties or unnecessary hardships inconsistent with the general purpose and intent of the regulations. There is only 4 feet in one rear yard and 4-1/2 feet in the other, exclusive of required yards, in which to expand the dwelling. (b) That there are exceptional circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved or to the intended use or development of the property that do not apply generally to other property in the same zone or neighborhood. Appro xi- mately 75% of the lot is taken up in required yards, thus leaving an inadequate area in which to expand. (c) That the granting of a variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in such zone or neigh- borhood in which the property is located. The proposed addition would be 12 feet away from the property line which is the neighboring property's side lot line -6- to which the neighbor may build as close as 5 feet. (dy The General Plan would not be affected by the approval of this variance. Subdivision - Tentative map of Rancho Vista Estates~ Units 2 and 3 Associate Planner Manganelli submitted the tentative map of Rancho Vista Estates, Units 2 and 3, noting the location as lying south of Telegraph Canyon Road and east of the proposed Interstate 805 Freeway. The entire subdivision totals 53 acres with Units 2 and 3 comprising 71 single-family lots on 16 acres. Mr. Manganelli reviewed the staff's conditions of approval. Mr. Howard Gesley, Assistant Engineer, discussed the conditions as proposed by the Division of Engineering commenting the conditions were the same as those approved ten months ago when the tentative map was first approved. Mr. Dennis Wittman, Vista Associates and Saratoga Development Company, developers of the property objected to the requirement for the public improve- ments on Telegraph Canyon Road. He stated the property here is under two ownerships, and that the improvements should be put in concurrent with the development of the property fronting on this road. As to the slope requirement, conforming to Resolution 127, Mr. Wittman stated they have the slopes drawn up to FHA requirements. These requirements are much more stringent than the Resolution 127 requirement. He asked that this condition be changed to read "to conform to FHA standards." Concerning condition No. 4--Ivy Court being revised to terminate in a cul-de-sac in accordance with standard drawing No. ll4--Mr. Wittman stated he can get the same number of tots by putting in the recommended cul-de-sac. They would like tp put in the same type cul-de-sac as that used in the Flair No. 2 Unit because it would give them more usable lots. Mr. Gesley stated he does not like the cul-de-sac permitted in Flair No. 2, that the Council has adopted a policy for these cul-de-sacs and the developer should be required to follow this. As to the required improvements on Telegraph Canyon Road, the original agreement was that one-third of the improvements would be constructed with each unit. They are not combining the units and have posted bond for one-third of the improvements on this road. Because this is the remainder of the R-1 development, we are asking for the rest of the improvements. These new homes will bring the total traffic count to well over 1000 trips daily. The Commission compared the standard slope requirements of Resolution No. 127 with that of FHA and agreed that the developer should conform to the FHA require- ments. Mr. Gesley stated he would be satisfied with FHA and the San Diego County requirements. Mr. Frank Whittington, developer of Rancho Vista subdivision, stated that Vista Associates owns this subdivision. He noted the area owned by the Saratoga Development Company and stated that the Vista Associates has no financial interest in the frontage on Telegraph Canyon Road. -7- City Attorney Lindberg stated that this same situation existed on the other side of Telegraph Canyon Road. The requirement was not imposed upon Halecrest Estates to improve Telegraph Canyon Road. The City expects the improvements to go in when the frontage is developed. James Brabant, Minister of the Park Hill Methodist Church, noted the common boundaries of the subdivision and the area owned by his church. He stated that they have now contracted with an architect to develop a master plan for their property. They have 6.4 acres and there is a question as to having more land than they need for a church site. If this is true, they will possibly sell off some. He added he would favor the developer's original plan of having a dead end street up to his property. Mr. Manganelli explained that the church site, as it exists now, is developed in the southwest corner of the property, so that in the future, any existing land could be from the easterly part and possibly a street brought up from Naples. Mr. Wittman remarked that their design of the street here was orientated to tile church's possible future development. They have met wi th the church owners a number of times in order to acquire some of this land. They have put this particular street in this position in the event that, if some of this land is available, they can acquire it and continue on with their program. This leaves the plan a little more flexible. City Attorney Lindberg discussed the requirement for the improvements on Telegraph Canyon Road. He felt the condition was one of a factual nature and not unreasonable to impose these requirements on R-1 development somewhat removed from a major thoroughfare. The reason for improving Telegraph Canyon Road is because of the increased traffic generated by the homes built there. The Commission discussed putting in a temporary cul-de-sac on the church property. Mr. Gesley explained that the resolution provides that a temporary cul-de-sac be provided inside or outside the subdivision. If the owner of the property , outside the subdivision refuses to have the cul-de-sac on his property, the subdivider has to provide it inside the subdivision limits, and that owner is required to put in the improvements when it is extended. If they are not going to cooperate, they are penalized to some extent by having to rip out the improvements and having to extend them again. The Commission concurred that this street should end in a knuckle unless some of the church property will be developed residentially; this would require. a stub street, one foot control lot, and a temporary cul-de-sac. Mr. Wittman again discussed the Ivy Court cul-de-sac maintaining it was physically impossible to do what the City Engineer suggests. Mr. Gesley claimed that the cul-de-sac could go in in such a way that they could take off some of the area of the lots to the north. These lots are deep and they don't need to be. Mr. Wittman declared he has no excess area here and has calculations computed on this lot by lot. -8- The Commission felt this matter should be studied by the staff and the developer, and if he cannot substantiate his position made heretonight, the developer would then have to conform to the condition of the Engineering Division. MSUC (Rice-Adams) Tentative map be recommended for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. The tentative map shall be redrawn and resubmitted for staff approval prior to the submission of a final map. The redrawn map shall reflect the following: a. The note on the tentative map regarding cut and fill slopes shall be deleted. Slopes shall be constructed in accordance with FHA and San Diego County standards. b. The rear lot lines between the tier of Lots 74 through 81 shall be redrawn to eliminate the confusing duplication of lines. c. Lot 104 on "B" Court is a corner lot and shall show the street setbacks at 10' for "B" Court and 15' for "B" Street. 2. The final map shall not be recorded until that portion of Lots 132 and 254 zoned R-3 is rezoned to R-1 or the lot lines altered to conform to the zoning pattern. 3. The proposed commercial lot in Unit #3 shall be redrawn to coincide with zoning established in Ordinance No. 1124. 4. Proposed cul-de-sac on Ivy Court shall be given a joint study by the staff and the developer. In the event the developer cannot substantiate his position made at the meeting of June 24, 1968, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, the Engineering condition will prevail. (Engineering condition: Ivy Court shall be revised to terminate in a cul-de-sac, in accordance with standard drawing No. 114.) 5. All public improvements shall be in accordance with the standard specifica- tions and standard drawings of the City of Chula Vista. 6. "B" Street shall be revised in the vicinity of lots llO through 112 to form a knuckle, per standard drawing No. 113 unless it is determined that a portion of the property to the south will be developed residentially, which will then necessitate the requirement for a stub street, one foot control lot, and a temporary cut-de-sac in accordance with City Council Resolution No. 4563. -9- Subdivision - Final map of Princess Manor, Unit No. 9 Associate Planner Manganelli submitted the final map of the subdivision noting the location as west of the terminus of Malta Avenue and south of Rohr Elemen- tary School. The unit will be subdivided into 49 single-family lots. Since it conforms to the requirements of the tentative map, the staff recommends approval. MSUC (Gregson-Rice) Recommend approval of final map of Princess Manor, Unit No. 9, subject to the following condition: The final map shall not be submitted for Council action until all fees are paid and all necessary bonds, deeds, slope rights and easements, as required by the City Engineer, have been delivered to the City. Subdivision - Tentative map of Princess Manor~ Unit No. 6 PUBLIC HEARING: Variance - Princess Manor Subdivision~ Unit No. 6 - Request for reduction in lot size from 7~000 square feet to 6,000 square feet - Princess Park Estates~ Inc. Associate Planner Manganelli noted that these two items are inter-related. He read a letter from the applicant requesting cancellation of the variance. The Commission can still discuss the subdivision--instead of obtaining 6,000 square foot lots, the subdivider would have to redesign this unit, if approved, to comply with the Ordinance. The subdivision will be an extension of Rivera Court. The area of the lots on the north side will be 7,000 square feet or larger and some of those on the south will be the requested reduction of lot size which request the applicant has just withdrawn. Mr. Manganelli noted the extension of Orange Avenue and a proposed flood channel, both on the applicant's property. He stated the staff recommends denial of the map based on the fact that this is not a satisfactory method of developing this land. There are no plans for one section of this area. City Attorney Lindberg asked if the staff was suggesting that the subdivision boundaries should include a major street and major flood control channel. Mr. Manganelli answered that the main objection to the map is that the remaining area between the proposed lots and Orange Avenue are not of sufficient size and shape to provide logical R-1 development in the future. The Commission concurred that the map should be disapproved. MSUC (Rice-Gregson) Disapproval of the tentative map of Princess Manor, Unit No. 6. The public hearing on the variance request was opened. There being no comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. MSUC (Adams-Rice) The variance request be filed. -10- Resolution - Approving variance for L. Gerken at 236 Del Mar Avenue Associate Planner Manganelli explained that at the last meeting, the Commission approved the variance request for a front yard setback from 25' to 15' for this applicant. The staff has prepared the findings for the resolution and recommended three conditions of approval which were discussed with the applicant. The applicant is in complete agreement with the conditions. MSUC (Adams-Gregson) Findings and conditions for the variance request be approved. Conditions are as follows: 1. The area between the curb and sidewalk shall be filled with concrete and one tree shall be provided (minimum of 6 feet high). 2. The front setback area shall be landscaped and maintained at all times. 3. The applicant shall sign an agreement prepared by the City Attorney attesting to the fact that they will not protest paying their share of the paving of the adjacent alley if, at such time in the future, an improvement project is approved by the City. Findings are: (a) That the strict application of the zoning regulations or requirements would result in particular difficulties or unnecessary hardships inconsistent with the general purpose and intent of the regulations. A 15 foot setback is being contemplated in the City's proposed Zoning Ordinance for multiple-family use, a required 25 foot setback would represent an unnecessary hardship on this lot since a 5 foot parkway already separates the building from sidewalk and street. (b) That there are exceptional circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved or to the intended use or development of the property that do not apply generally to other property in the same zone or neighborhood. The 25 foot setback was established many years ago when this area was developed with single-family homes, however, the use for all new structures in the area has been multiple units. The extension of this street south of Davidson has a 10 foot setback for residential development. (c) That the granting of a variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in such zone or neigh- borhood in which the property is located. The reduced setback will not be det- rimental to the area since the Commission is calling for a hearing to establish the setback at 15 feet for the entire area. (d) That the granting of a variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the General Plan. The General Plan is not affected. -ll- - Discussion - Proposed zonin§ b,y C. McMillin in the Sweetwater Valley Associate Planner Manganelli explained that the Planning staff received a notice from the County Planning Department several weeks ago stating that they will be having a public hearing concerning zoning on property in the Valley. The subdivider, C. McMillin, is proposing to put in a subdivision with 10,000 and 15,000 square foot lots. The staff made no specific recommendation on the zoning request because they felt the area zoned as such, would conform to the adjacent areas and to the General Plan. The County Planning Department approved the rezoning and a tentative map-- the staff did make a few comments on the tentative map. The Board of Super- visors will now hear this rezoning request, and the staff has had contacts from the Sweetwater Valley Civic Association who wish to speak to the Commission in this regard. The staff has notified Mr. McMillin who is also here tonight. Mr. Seng, 3964 Acacia Avenue, representing the Sweetwater Valley Civic Association, stated they are here as a matter of interest as they didn't expect to have this item put on the agenda. They do appreciate this oppor- tunity to inform this Commission that they are irrevocably opposed to any reduction of lot sizes in this area. Whatever happens here in the Valley affects the City of Chula Vista as well as this is part of their planning area and may well become a part of the city some day. They feel the entire Valley should be preserved with larger lots and that this is not a proper development for the Valley. There is single-family development abutting this proposed subdivision along Acacia Street and most of the opposition is coming from there. This subdivision is developed with one-half acre lots, and thus the people are concerned with the proposed density here. The Sweetwater Valley Civic Association asks that the Commission support their request for low density in this area. Mr. C. McMillin, the subdivider, showed the Commission his proposed tentative map. He stated that some of the lots on Acacia Avenue are less than one-half acre and there is a large hill (250' to 275') that abuts this area and separates it from the homes on Acacia. The main access to the subdivision will be off Central Avenue and it has frontage on Bonita Road. He noted the public hearings in the County and the conditions imposed. He added that he has met with the Sweetwater Valley Civic Association and presented this plan to them. At that time, they agreed to approve the plan subject to the agree- ment that he meet with a three-man committee and cooperate with them, which he agreed to do. He intends to build something here that will improve this area. One of the chief complaints is that the people do not want curbs and sidewalks--if the area is improved at all, they must have street lights, curbs and sidewalks, regardless of who develops here. Mr. Bob Deming, 5405 San Miguel Road, discussed the Dawson Subdivision south of Central Avenue and declared that a petition was circulated in this subdivision opposing this rezoning. He would like to see a "no contest" decision made here. -12- Mrs. William Spies, director of Sweetwater Valley Civic Association, thanked the Commission for the opportunity to speak on this matter. She indicated that the people want to retain the character of the area. The area encompasses 113 acres and the subdivider is only going to build on a part of it. She maintained that Mr. Barney of the Flood Control Office objected to the rezoning of a part of the area that borders Acacia Avenue because it is in the flood plain. The people are concerned with what guarantee exists that the drainage ditch, as proposed by the developer, will be put in. From Sunnyside area on the east to Glen Abbey Cemetery on the west, the people do not want this piece meal zoning of smaller lots. The people in the Valley hope the County and the City of Chula Vista can work in conjunction here and propose a plan for community development of the Valley. Mrs. Spies stated that Mr. McMillin told them that 100% of the people he approached in the Valley bordering this proposed subdivision were in favor of it, but he failed to mention that most of these people that signed his petition were miles away from the proposed subdivision, even some from Chula Vista. Mr. Gale Burkey, 4075 Del Prado, stated he was the one that approached Mr. Warren and discussed this matter with him. It was Mr. Warren's idea that it be put on the Commission agenda in order to get a directive from the Commission as to what status the staff should take here. Mr. Manga:elli explained that the Commission should decide whether they wish to have the staff present at the Board of Supervisors meeting or not. He explained the staff's policy on the County zoning requests. The Commission agreed that this item was important enough for the Commission to take a hand in this. They suggested the staff contact the Board of Super- visors to ask for a continuance of the matter so that they will have more time to study it and make a recommendation. Mr. McMillin declared it would present a problem to him--there has been a great deal of delay al ready since it first came before the County Planning Commission in April. He discussed his proposed density again stating that part of the area will be developed with less than 2 homes per acre and the other part will average 2.4 homes per acre. The area he is discussing is 90 net acres and conforms to the General Plan of the City of Chula Vista. City Attorney Lindberg stated that the Commission should not discuss the details of the tentative map which the subdivider filed in the County. The subject of discussion is the proposed zoning. Mr. Manganelli declared that the staff feels it does conform to the General Plan and the overall gross density is quite low. This is a somewhat similar density concept that the Commission recently discussed for a Planned Unit Development in the Bonita Valley--the level area would be developed at a higher density and the higher area would be of lower density and open space would be dedicated to the County. Member Adams stated that in view of this statement, he withdraws his objections. -13- Mr. Seng remarked that the County Planning Commission approved this develop- ment requiring only a final subdivision map filed on one unit--9 acres or 27 lots. There is no assurance of how the rest of the subdivision will be developed. Mr. McMillin assured them that the subdivision will be developed with 10,000 square foot lots on the lower ground, or 115 to 117 lots on 41.7 acres, which averages 3 to an acre; the balance of the unit will be less than 2 per acre. The Commission concurred to follow the staff's recommendation in this matter and take no action. Discussion - A.B. 1217 - Zoning regulation pertainin~ to school~ Associate Planner Manganelli stated this request came from the Chief Adminis- trative Officer asking that the Commission review it. It concerns an Assembly Bill which would require school districts to adhere to the zoning regulations of the city in which located. The staff recommends that the Commission send this matter on to the Council with the recommendation that they communicate with the Legislature asking for adoption of this bill. MSUC (Adams-Gregson) Recommend to the City Council that they communicate with the Legislature favoring the bill. ADJOURNMENT MSUC (Rice-Gregson) Meeting be adjourned sine die. tqeeting adjourned at 10:20 p~m. Respectful ly submitted Jennie M. Fulasz Secretary